On Thu, 28 September 2006 08:04:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> No. I _really_ want to clarify this, because so many people get it wrong.
> Really.
>
> The "GPLv2 only" wording is really just a clarification. You don't need it
> for the project to be "GPLv2 only".
>
> If a project says: "This code is licensed under this copyright license"
> and then goes on to quote the GPLv2, then IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE
> GPLv3!
>
> Or if you just say "I license my code under the GPLv2", IT IS NOT
> COMPATIBLE WITH THE GPLv3.
And this is an area where I slightly disagree with you. While I would
hope that you were right, I can easily imagine a judge ruling that "v2
or later" in the preamble means that the project just signed a blank
license of the FSF's discretion.
I can just as easily imagine a judge ruling that "simply copying the
GPL license verbatim and not removing the 'or later'" clause is does
not sufficiently demonstrate the authors intent to dual-license the
code.
And the likelihood of either ruling will depend on many things, but
will never reach 0 or 1. It is a gray area where your legal advice is
just as bad as mine and your "GPLv2 only" clarification may in fact be
a fork I was talking about. We just don't know until this has been
tested in court, which hopefully never happens.
Jörn
--
Joern's library part 11:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
